November 30, 2001

THE
OIL FACTORThe
geopolitics of the Third World War

It
is practically an article of faith among the antiwar Left that the Afghan
war is not really about terrorism at all, but, in reality, is an effort by
the US (and specifically the oil-connected Bush administration) to seize Middle
Eastern oil supplies and secure the profits of US petroleum companies. They
are on the right track, in a sense, but, then again, it isn't that simple.

SWEET NOTHINGS

An
interesting piece in Slate, "Russia, Oil, and Conspiracy
Theories," by London Telegraph writer Anne Applebaum, floats the
theory that what is going on here is not an attempted seizure so much as an
effort to shift the locus of world oil production from the Arabian peninsula
to the former Soviet republics of the Caucasus – and Russia. The recent Bush-Putin
summit, in which the two leaders made kissy-face for the cameras, was
a display of public affection that seemed out of all proportion to its actual
results. While for much of the time it seemed that Bush was whispering
sweet nothings in Putin's ear, the two leaders still agreed to disagree
about missile defense, and not much progress was made on the ABM issue, either.
So why were the two leaders spooning like newlyweds?

A
DEEP, DARK CONSPIRACY?

Applebaum
points to Russia's refusal to join with OPEC in limiting oil production as
key to understanding the much-heralded Russo-American alliance. However, for
every dollar decrease in the price of oil, says Applebaum, Russia loses a
billion in revenue. So what's up with that? "Those who prefer the deepest,
darkest, most dramatic answers to this question already suspect the existence
of a plot," she avers: "a Russian conspiracy to destroy OPEC in general and
to destabilize Saudi Arabia in particular, the better to increase Russian
market share."

THE
BIG PAYOFF

But
there is nothing particularly deep about this sort of purely economic motivation:
nations invariably act in their own self-interest, and if Putin has calculated
that the costs of the Russo-US alliance will bust his budget for several years,
he is also counting on a payoff: in this case, a veritable jackpot. For as
Ted Rall points out in a perceptive piece, "The
New Great Game," this is all about control of the enormous oil reserves
recently discovered in the Caspian Sea region – and how to pipe it out to
Western consumers. Beneath the soil of Kazakhstan, alone, is enough buried
treasure – 50 billion barrels of oil – to surpass the legendary wealth of
the Arab sheiks. Saudi Arabia has only 30 billion barrels left.

CONSPIRACY
THEORY (ADVANCED VERSION)

Taking
this "conspiracy theory" one step farther, Applebaum posits

"An
advanced version of this conspiracy theory [that] has the United States in
on the plot to destroy the Saudis. Admittedly, such an intrigue would have
a certain historical symmetry to it: There are those who believe that the
United States, in league with Saudi Arabia, also tried (successfully) to destroy
the Soviet Union in the 1980s by lowering oil prices. And certainly it is
true that in the wake of Sept. 11 America's close relationship with the Saudis
is under tough scrutiny. OK, they're our allies-but who needs an ally
whose citizens fly airplanes into American buildings?"

LAND
OF UGLY GOLD JEWELRY

The
real deal on the chorus of anti-Saudi rhetoric coming out of the War Party,
in recent weeks, is that the Americans may have indeed decided to throw their
Saudi puppets overboard: together with their newfound ally, Russia, and the
Oriental despotisms of Central Asian "republics," they hope to get in on the
"Great
Game" – the pursuit of almost unimaginable wealth in the legendary land
of the Golden Horde.
As I pointed out in "A Saudi Connection?",
Crown Prince Abdullah, heir to the House of Saud, is not likely to be as compliant
as his predecessors, and the long-standing deal between the Saudi princes
and US oil interests shows signs of unraveling. As Rall puts it: "Once the
oil starts flowing, it won't take long before Kazakhstan replaces Kuwait as
the land of Benzes and ugly gold jewelry."

THE
CASPIAN CONNECTION

The
question of how to make this happen now preoccupies the Big Oil-GOP-corporatist
alliance. The radical wing, energized by 9/11, advocates a preemptive American
first strike against Saudi Arabia, and, indeed, against the whole Arab-Muslim
world. For a war on Iraq – their cause of the hour – would not only destabilize
the House of Saud, but also lead to a spike in oil prices, as supplies are
interrupted, further shifting the focus of oil extraction efforts to the Caspian
region and the construction of a pipeline.

THE
UNOCAL PLAN

Unable
to take the shortest route, through Iran  because "America's powerful
Israel lobby has blocked Washington's efforts" to deal with Teheran, as
Eric Margolis puts it  one plan is for the Russians to build a pipeline
to the Black Sea. But Islamic rebels are on the rampage in the region, and
the Turkmen government has had a rocky relationship with the Russians, who
tend to run out on their bills. Rall points out that "the logical alternative,
then, is Unocal's plan, which is to extend Turkmenistan's existing system
west to the Kazakh field on the Caspian and southeast to the Pakistani port
of Karachi on the Arabian Sea. That project runs through Afghanistan."

THE
GREAT GAME CONTINUES

Here's
a
wire service story on how the Afghan war, while it may have devastated
a great deal of the country, has at least fueled some local businesses:
an exporter of rugs, a maker of gloves and sweaters – and Big Oil. After the
1998 embassy bombings in Africa prompted US strikes against Al Qaeda camps
in Afghanistan, Unocal pulled out of the pipeline deal. But plenty of others
are eagerly pouncing on the opportunity to play – and perhaps win – the Great
Game.

According
to Rob Sobhani, president of Washington-based Caspian Energy Consulting and
a former consultant in Central Asia for Amoco (now British Petroleum), "Other
major energy companies could see big opportunities in a deal crucial to restarting
Afghanistan's economy." Sobhani pointed out that a new pipeline plan could
bring in revenues totaling $100 million – "a fortune for a country with no
effective infrastructure that has been ravaged by 22 years of war."

THE
EURASIAN OPTION

But
the old UNOCAL route, south to Karachi, may be abandoned, in the near future,
in favor of a Eurasian route, as
Richard Norton-Taylor points out in the [UK] Guardian. With the
Europeans clamoring for their fair share of the oil bonanza, an EU delegation
visited the Caucasus recently, whereupon

"Soon
after the EU visit, Georgia's president, Eduard Shevardnadze, welcomed European
and US support for the 'Great Silk Road idea.' The plan, backed by Washington
and American oil companies, including Chevron, is for a pipeline taking Turkmenistan
and Kazakh oil to Baku, the Azerbaijani capital, through Tbilisi, the Georgian
capital, and through eastern Turkey to the Mediterranean port of Ceyhan."

PIPELINE
POLITICS

And
not only the Europeans, but the Russians and the Chinese are "desperate" to
get in on the act. The various factions, then, are roughly defined by which
pipeline plan they favor. The relatively moderate wing of the Bush administration,
centered around Colin Powell's State Department, seems to be sticking with
the original UNOCAL route, south to Karachi: this is reflected in Powell's
concern to keep Pakistan intact and within the American sphere of influence.
On the other hand, the neoconservative-warhawk faction, led by Donald Rumsfeld
and Paul Wolfowitz, seems to be going for the Eurasian route – in which case
placating the Pakistanis is irrelevant and unnecessary. Another factor, however,
aside from oil, is involved in this equation.

PUTTING
ISRAEL FIRST

By
deleting the Arab world entirely from US geopolitical considerations – invading
Iraq, destabilizing the Saudis, and plunging the entire region into chaos
and war – the "Eurasianists" will have eliminated Israel's enemies in a single
stroke. This is a major consideration, if not the only motivating factor,
in the neoconservative jihad against Iraq.

BLAMING
AMERICA?

Of
course, the ideologues of the War Party claim that an economic analysis of
the "war on terrorism" is morally insensitive. After all, what about the 3,500
or so victims of the 9/11 atrocity? This war, they claim, is about making
sure that never happens again. But is it? Such an effort, seriously undertaken,
would necessitate a wholesale review of the American policy initiatives that
made Taliban rule over the Afghans possible – an effort, we are told (predictably,
by these same people) that cannot be undertaken because to do so would
have to mean that the innocent victims of 9/11 somehow deserve it. That is
"blaming America." The blame must be pinned on the American government, not
ordinary Americans, and if that is what they mean by "blaming America," well,
tough  because it's true.

A
DOLLAR A GALLON

As
Central Asian expert Ahmed Rashid points out in his book, Taliban,
published last year, we created the Taliban, with the cooperation of
the Pakistani intelligence service and Saudi assistance. Citing Rashid's book,
Tall points out that "as recently as 1999, U.S. taxpayers paid the entire
annual salary of every single Taliban government official, all in the hopes
of returning to the days of dollar-a-gallon gas. Pakistan, naturally, would
pick up revenues from a Karachi oil port facility." When the Taliban turned
against their sponsors, however, the Great Game took a different turn.

OSAMA
ON THE RIVIERA

It
is interesting to note that the Taliban, the Pakistanis, the Saudis, and even
the original cadre of Al Qaeda all were previous allies of the US in the cold
war era. Without the Afghan war of "liberation" against the Soviet occupiers,
which Zbigniew
Brzezinski boasted brought down the Kremlin, perhaps Osama bin Laden would
have been just another rich Saudi wastrel, whoring and gambling his way through
the Riviera. Without the milieu provided by the Afghan war, Al Qaeda, at any
rate, would never have developed into a effectively murderous cult with an
international following. The Afghan war against the Soviet occupation may,
in the short term, have helped bring down the Evil Empire – but, in the long
run, it also brought down the twin towers, and threatened to erect yet another
evil empire in its stead.

IT'S
NOT THAT SIMPLE

The
anti-war Left, then, sees the oil factor in overly simplistic terms. In their
anti-corporate, anti-capitalist demonology, all oil companies are evil, by
definition, and in collusion with the US government to profit through war.
In this case, however, as we have seen, there are competing factions within
the corporate elite, each contending for the prize, and bidding for support
from the US government.

During
the Clinton era, a whole sub-department was created to facilitate the extraction
of oil profits from the Caspian Sea region, and this has certainly not been
abolished by the Bushies. The point is that some companies will win out, and
others will lose, in the battle to gain Washington's favor. If the Powell
faction wins out, the route through Pakistan will not destabilize the region
and we will be spared the extension of the war throughout the Middle East.
If the Rumsfeld-Wolfowitz group triumphs – and there
are some disturbing indications that this is indeed the case – the entire
Middle East will be plunged into war, with US soldiers in the thick of it.

MYSTIFYING
CHOMSKY

The
leftist dogma that it doesn't matter which wing of the "ruling class," the
capitalists, wins out in the end is refuted by this reality. Capitalism, per
se, doesn't breed war: indeed, laissez-faire requires quite the
opposite. And don't think the ordinary capitalist profits from war: this privilege
is reserved for those with the right government connections.

The
very real economic harm done by war – the cost in wasted wealth, as well as
wasted lives – could pull the US, already mired in a sharp recession, into
a full-fledged depression. The stock market is not going to like World War
III – and neither will most Americans once they realize that all this talk
about nothing ever being the same again means economic catastrophe. The Vietnam
War drained the life out of the US economy during the late sixties and early
seventies, and the financial shock of a prolonged Mideast conflict could well
be far worse. In the end, the markets are vehemently antiwar – a phenomenon
that must mystify Noam Chomsky to no end.

Please Support Antiwar.com

A contribution
of $25 or more gets you a copy of Justin Raimondo's Into the Bosnian Quagmire:
The Case Against U.S. Intervention in the Balkans, a 60-page booklet packed
with the kind of intellectual ammunition you need to fight the lies being put
out by this administration and its allies in Congress. And now, for a limited
time, donors of $50 or more receive a copy of Ronald Radosh's classic study
of the Old Right conservatives, Prophets on the Right: Profiles of Conservative
Critics of American Globalism. Send contributions to